Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 27, 2012 5:30am-6:00am PDT

5:30 am
>> who is sending it to me? >chair mcdonnell: we can list them all. we are only required those better over plus or minus 1%. >> can i give more background on how i drafted this? chair mcdonnell: in a moment. to the first question, all or that which is above or below 1%? >> the requirement is you have to explain, identified the neighborhoods that explain the deviations. those might be inside or outside of the district in which there is a deviation. >> does that change whether we
5:31 am
list them all or not? >> it could. my impression was based on a feedback we needed to do that. instead of suggesting, because there is a ripple effect, instead of saying district 1 espies - 1, and here are the neighborhoods that we have preserved and we have preserved x. r. cotter was more beneficial to preserve -- if you are in district 1 and you do to -- tan other neighborhoods, that would be the implication as opposed to saying, so it was a more clear picture, recognizing neighborhoods. >> does that satisfy?
5:32 am
>> yes. >> her approach is similar to how the san diego commission reported their findings. that was my thinking that that is how it would be incorporated into our reports, in section 4. my question is, if we are to agree to this type of format for adoption, how does that differ -- defer into that final map? am i making any sense? member melara: you are right. it would seem redundant to if we are going to include both. i would rather include the deviations.
5:33 am
at the same time, i would point to one thing, what ms. tidwell put together, most of the neighborhoods were not in question when we made those changes with in those districts. the districts that really came up as part of that change that remade, i'm looking and district 7. we have debated very little except for those neighborhoods around the edges. >> my response would be that the criteria is that we can go to 5% for preserving recognized neighborhoods.
5:34 am
i think what it shows is that the goal of our task force to the extent possible. for the sake of moving forward, maybe we wanted to warn them. >> i wanted to add we should not stay communities of interest. >> i am looking at the report from the 2002 redistricting task force. on this point, i thought the way they handled it worked really well. it was elegant. they had two different approaches. they focused on the district
5:35 am
that exceeded the 1% between the 1 and 5%. they had two different techniques. one was to identify neighborhoods within the district but they kept intact and which caused a deviation greater than 1%. another approach was to identify neighborhoods in surrounding districts that they wanted to keep intact and had an impact on the district in question. i can pass this down the table and see what people think but i thought that was a pretty effective way of identifying the motivation that would not be redundant with the other sections of our report. that is what i would suggest we do. member schreiber: are was going to observe, there are two things
5:36 am
going on. one is the deviations and the other thing was what we compared individually, reflecting more public comment. what was significant in terms of public comment we had to resolve in terms of disputed issues with communities. they are slightly different. whether we need them both, i do not now. member pilpel: i thought we have this discussion on the end. i thought we were going to do and. i think i am with member leigh and then having separate description of those that are more devious? i do not know.
5:37 am
i am already in trouble. if there is an elegant way to do that, i support that. i think describing each district with its significant neighborhoods amkemakes sense and having a short sentence for each district is between one and five satisfies the legal requirements. so i would do but elegantly. thank you. any other questions/ suggestions or proposals. >> we need to include a list of recognized neighborhoods for those districts. i am not wedded to this idea. to the extent we need to spell that out and it is best done know. i literally jotted down notes from the last version of the
5:38 am
draft amp. map. we need to decide on a position. i was not volunteering to do that i just wanted to start the conversation. >> in reviewing the 2000 work, the work of the 2000 task force, and as mr. lee pointed out their elegant presentation, what -- i can't get my brain around is this would suggest that they tracked the domino affect a particular decisions. so was that the action that caused you to do something or was that the lake street action? rather than trying to frankly
5:39 am
figure that out or retrace steps, i guess i am of the opinion in this moment that we actually stay consistent with the proposed format which is to do them all and represent the recognized neighborhoods that we have kept intact because we did not change them at all or because we did do some changes and the result was they are where they are in each district. that would be my recommendation. >> if i may. >> you may. >> the thought exercise that might be useful in considering whether it would be feasible to replicate the approach or adopt the approach that the 2000 task force took is to review our map and see whether we can identify, not an exhaustive list
5:40 am
necessarily, but for the purposes of justifying why the deviation exceeds 1% in each of those districts where that is true that we can identify to the reasonable standard what at least one or more o neighborhoods in that district or the neighboring district that we did keep intact which created the need for that deviation greater than 1%. and i think it is possible to do. >> how is that different than what they've done. there are recognized neighborhoods that she has identified. whether there are all of them or more to the attic is an open question. that is in my mind what she has done. how was that different than what you are proposing? >> one difference is that it is not duplicative of the other section that would be in our report. >> i think the suggestion would be that it is not duplicative.
5:41 am
cathedral hill in section 2 or 5, we discuss the public comment received. then the report would not reflect that we have the completed, recognized neighborhood of cathedral hill in either 2 or 5. that was not a recognized neighborhood that we ended up unifying. >> she went further than i would've gone because what in my mind what makes them not duplicative is my district 5 summary lifts up the recognize neighborhoods and/or communities of interest that were in question and identifies with the question was. japan town, in 2 or in 5 -- period. and 5 or 2 in one -- period.
5:42 am
and so that's in my mind very different than here were the recognize the borders that resulted from that. >> i think i see that distinction. i still prefer the way it was handled 10 years ago. if we are taking this approach, it seems to me that some of the neighborhoods that are in the list -- thank you for doing this, it is very helpful -- but it seems that there are -- that it's debatable whether the neighborhoods that are listed have been kept intact. so, for example, for district 5 justice but to our earlier discussion today, you have nopa on the list. i think it's highly debatable whether nopa in our working draft that we are going to post
5:43 am
tonight has been kept intact. >> so i would suggest on nopa that there have been various different testimonies as to the turk -- east of masonic group -- and what i would call the greater hait north of panhandle group. went to fulton. the nopa, in my my impression, would be completed. i would also suggest that the greater haight would not. so, again, i think it is of for interpretation. if you have an alternative suggestion as to something else that should be done, i looked at what san diego did and i did not find a compelling when i started looking at that. this is why i switched to this. >> can i suggest?
5:44 am
no. >> you may >> why don't we go with our original idea that we keep both and we can always delete and sleep on it. >> what was in the content was literally for purposes of engaging in the conversation occurred >> what i do think somebody needs to do other than mr. did well is to go through this list and ensure that it is all inclusive or only highlights the terrible conversations we had about how we do this. otherwise, when you -- leave something out, you may run the risk of having people complained that they have another neighborhood that we do not remember. >> ok.
5:45 am
mr. pilpel. member pilpel: to molly, if we included a statement like district to deviate's by the statistical me by greater than 1% to keep the outer richmond, central richmond, in richmond areas together, wouuld thald tha statemtent that would do the trick for the deviation purpose? que>> yes. you can do it in a way that the task force did previously. either way is fine legally. >> i am still in favor of that kind of statement for the deviation. and a different statement for the descriptions that were larger and lists more neighborhoods or however we would want to do color and flavor on that. >> pause for a second.
5:46 am
>> therefore, if there is no objection, the specifics underneath these banners and notwithstanding the statement i am ready to make, what mayor tidwell has done to quote- unquote mirror the 2000 report would be the opening statement. district 1 deviates blah, blah, blah to protect these. to the point that was raised, we need to be clear that those listed are those that are in fact whoel. i think we also said we would take off communities of interest. so can we ask karan and team to review our current draft and to pull from that, but identify
5:47 am
within that the recognized neighborhoods, just as a catalog of listings that would then have district one, district two, district 3, it does to four through 11? is that doable? >> and then do you want this to say this is recognized by the department of elections. and then submit it? >> no. >> ok. >> then what layer do you want us oto work with? >> use department and of elections. >> the portila is different and what was public we submitted. >> but that will not change whether we are saying portila is -- >> it does. what you've done it is what you have stepped through the public submission. then we have gone to planning or
5:48 am
elections. so most of your neighborhoods are probably in line with the public submissions if you overlay the same neighborhoods by the department of elections it will not matter because they are there for different purposes. you may see their pieces outside of your lines even though they've conform to the submissions. >> for the purpose of this discussion, if that is true, and nothing is true, because depending on what you overlay, it is inconsistent with something. so how we choose a standard, a guide post that is accepted? otherwise, everything is debatable. >> maybe it helps to think about it is making two findings. one are making a finding of what is a recognized neighborhood and the second that you are preserving their recognized neighborhood. so the recognized neighborhood is for this purpose whatever you say it is. that could be based on public
5:49 am
testimony or based on the department of elections or planning a you are making a finding in saying that this is a recognized neighborhood and we have preserved it. >> and so what i was trying to get to was enlisting the aid of a consultant to can take a look at what we have done and at least come up with a preliminary listing, i'm afraid to use recognized neighborhoods note -- but a list of recognize neighborhoods that we can then review and determine whether they get included or not. >> but that is why i was saying that perhaps what we only need to say is why we did what we did. in some cases, it is very clear why some things got where they did. you know, we decided to reunite the northern mission because the mission is a recognized neighborhood. but if we start, what i am saying is that a lot of what we did was not necessarily for every neighborhood. we did it for specific
5:50 am
neighborhoods and for specific reasons. and so if we just did that, that would be, i think -- because you are explaining why we did what we did. russian hill is a neighborhood, the tenderloin is the neighborhood. that is something that we did and debated over, and we don't necessarily have to talk about union square. do you know what i'm saying? >> i do. and i was trying to get us to having a list to review and decide what is in or not. >> can i make a suggestion? do you have the public, and later of neighborhoods, a public submissions. so it is probably worth them generating a list of of, within the current context of our draft map, whether what recognized neighborhoods based on public submissions are found within the
5:51 am
current draft map. >> is that doable? >> by when? >> saturday. >> 6 a.m.? by end of day friday? >> yeah. >> ok. >> mr. pilpel and mr. alonso. >> i would not want to limit it to public submissions because i do not think we got to missions for the entire city. and there may be instances where there are disputes between different organizations and difference of metals. i would say in general if the consultant believes, and this is a judgment call. i do not think this section of the report is as objective as one might want it to be carried i think it actually comes back to us and our subjective
5:52 am
judgment as to what is a recognized neighborhood. i think we would probably find as a group that we brought the portila together and put it in 9. i'm not sure if the entire area tracks 100% to a public submission, the department of elections or city planning, but i think we can still make the finding reasonably that we brought the portila together and put it in 9. what i'm hoping for is that the consulting can look at what was done and say these, we feel very comfortable and recommending that you find and these are some ones where you may need to vote and make that judgment call. because i think all of these are judgments for us to make. does that make any sense at 12:30 in the morning? >> no. apologies.
5:53 am
>> all right. i tried. >> mr. alonso. >> i'm sorry, but somehow i cannot help but feel that we are making this a lot more complicated than it has to be. the bottom line is we were the ones that defined these neighborhoods. and we did based on public testimony, especially after we realized that a lot of the planning maps, a lot of the electoral maps were insufficient. so eventually the neighborhoods are as we did find them. and if we just keep it simple and call what the neighborhood is, what it is by its needs and bounds, i think we would make a lot more simple for us and for whoever reads at the end of this process.
5:54 am
i just really have a hard time believing that we are going to keep going around in circles and circles in circles until we catch our tail. we are not. bottom line is we are making this a lot more complicated than it is. so, however it is the most simplest, let's just. try just >> thank you. council, again, given that there are varied definitions, is there therefore a need to -- let me start over. me. leigh said a moment ago, part of the challenges -- he gave one random example and said it was nopa. whole or preserved or not.
5:55 am
is the idea is that we need to find those that pass the test or that by our definition it is a recognized, and we have preserved it. >> it is the latter. >> ok, therefore, would you please create the list, based upon member tidwelll's public submissions? we recognize that there may be some omissions. we can add. this is a starter list that populates each one. we will have the opportunity to review and add and finalize. >> let me add to this. we know which neighborhoods you use. so if there is a gap between the public submission and whatever you used, we can fill that in and tell you. thank you. >> excellent. ok. any objection? perfect. thank you very much. and to the last point that ms.
5:56 am
melara made. ok, she reference to the conclusion of our meeting on saturday. we will have deliberated over this and other pieces of the final report. and there will be a moment at approximately 12:15 on saturday when we will declare ourselves done. how's that for optimism? but there is of point a which we say we are done and we are able to hand it to you. what what about that does not work in your mind? >> she was suggesting if changes needed to be made that we had a laptop available that we could make the changes. i can see of that can be done, and then a member can be making changes up there. and i think we would have to check on the wi-fi situation.
5:57 am
>> i will bring my laptop and i have a sprint card. >> is that member tidwell? >> that is. anything else, kate, you would need of us? >> i dno'on't think so. >> ok, thank you. mr. pilpel. >> will that be similar to the ballot simplification committee where we are working on line to finish things? >> that is how i am in addition it. >> if that can happen, that can be great. >> there would be a computer and a screen, and as the task force is making changes those that it would be projected on the screen. >> fantastic. >> ok. we have a plan forward. >> i have a question before saturday. so once it is completed, who delivers it to the department of
5:58 am
elections? >> so the line? >> so there are a few pieces. are you talking about the report or the map? the report. so the redistricting consultants will coordinate getting the map to the department of elections. >> great. >> so then the report i think would be you. we can email it to kay. as long as it is e-mail by a certain time, we are fine. >> you can also authorize kay to do final formatting. my contract is of. up. >> 12:15 p.m. on saturdday. 9 going back to the report, there is the one section that we agreed that will be there that we are a portion.
5:59 am
i didn't see it. from a couple of minutes ago, he said that we could take what was in the agenda. we voted on not releasing it. >> what is required, counselor? >> nothing is required. >> thank you. in or out? >> is that a proposal? is there something specific we can talk about. >> you think there is. ms. tidwell. >> i'm not particularly partial to having a sex. on the >> thank you. >> mr. schrieber. i think it is worth a sentence in the objective part of the report describing what we have published in the manicured >> thank you.